Video surveillance has grown to play an important part in security. Video cameras have been employed in numerous locations to monitor and deter certain undesirable behavior.
Video cameras are currently used to monitor locations in the absence of humans. ATMs, banks, and convenience stores are typically equipped with video cameras that constantly record video signals for later viewing. Thus, in the event of an emergency such as a robbery, the recorded signal can be reviewed at a later time to help identify the perpetrators of the crime. However, these systems are primarily useful for identifying criminals after the crime has been committed. The only way these systems can prevent crime is by the deterrence that results from the presence of the camera. That is, an unscrupulous party would be more hesitant to commit a crime if they saw a video camera.
Video cameras have also been employed to assist humans in monitoring locations. Retail stores have used video cameras so that store managers and security guards can view customer behavior in an effort to curtail shop-lifting. Furthermore, security guards in offices and apartment buildings use video cameras to view several locations simultaneously. For example, a security guard may view hallways, parking lots and elevators while sitting at a front desk.
While video cameras that automatically record activity for later review are not particularly useful in preventing crime, video cameras that assist humans in the monitoring process suffer their own shortcomings. For example, proprietary systems such as closed-circuit television systems can only be used by employed security guards. And because only a limited number of security guards can feasibly view the video feeds from these closed-circuit television systems, there are more errors in the detection of emergencies. In order to effectively monitor all areas of an establishment at all times, the owner would need to employ a substantial number of security guards, which would be prohibitively costly. Moreover, prior art video security systems do not enable managers and employers to test for a security guard's attentiveness. Thus, a security guard could be sleeping while supposedly “watching” the monitor.
The widespread adoption of the Internet as a tool for remote communication has also given rise to the development of video and image-based remote security systems. For example, PriVID Eye Systems Corporation is a Florida-based development firm specializing in advanced remote video monitoring technologies. Their “RemoteVision MX” is a software “video capture card” package that enables a user to view remote locations through their PC over a telephone line. Similarly, Novex Canada's “Video Catcher Plus” (“VC+”) is a home security package that includes software, 4 alarms, 4 video cameras and a small device that plugs into the serial port of a home PC. The video cameras and the alarms are connected to the computer through the device. A user of the VC+ can connect to their PC from a remote computer through a conventional modem/PSTN connection to view video feeds. The VC+ allows for viewing of up to 4 videos on one screen simultaneously. Also, the VC+ is enabled with motion detection such that recording can be automatically started only if and when a motion is detected.
Companies such as Cannondale have recently employed a web-based system enabling managers to view production work as described by James E. Gaskin, “Cyberspace Goes Blue-collar”, Inter@ctive Week, Aug. 19, 1998. As discussed in the Gaskin article, Weyer Haeuser not only uses web-based remote cameras to view the production floor, but has supplemented remote monitoring using net-cams to view dials and meters of production equipment. However, these web-based systems suffer from the same shortcomings as closed-circuit television systems. In particular, there currently is no way for a property owner to effectively monitor his premises without prohibitively escalating his costs or to test the attentiveness of those monitoring his premises.